linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 09/12] dyndbg: add trace destination field to

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 12 Nov 2023 17:29:07 +0100
From:   Łukasz Bartosik <lb@...ihalf.com>
To:     jim.cromie@...il.com
Cc:     Jason Baron <jbaron@...mai.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...gle.com>,
        Yaniv Tzoreff <yanivt@...gle.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...gle.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@...s.com>,
        Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@...il.com>,
        Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        upstream@...ihalf.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 09/12] dyndbg: add trace destination field to _ddebug

pt., 10 lis 2023 o 20:37 <jim.cromie@...il.com> napisał(a):
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2023 at 7:52 AM Łukasz Bartosik <lb@...ihalf.com> wrote:
> >
> > sob., 4 lis 2023 o 02:39 <jim.cromie@...il.com> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2023 at 7:10 AM Łukasz Bartosik <lb@...ihalf.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Add trace destination field (trace_dst) to the _ddebug structure.
> > > > The trace destination field is used to determine output of debug
> > > > logs when +T is set. Setting trace_dst value to 0 (default) enables
> > > > output to prdbg and devdbg trace events. Setting trace_dst value to
> > > > a value in range of [1..255] enables output to trace instance.
> > >
> > >
> > > should we do some expectation setting here ?
> > > 255 is something of a promise to more than tom,dick,harry.
> > > 16-64 is more suggestive of a limited resource,
> > > might encourage more judicious use.
> > >
> >
> > How about making it configurable in kernel Kconfig with default value
> > set to 16 or 32 ?
> >
>
> given the general dislike of extra knobs, it's not the battle I would choose.
> ISTM we could start small, add bits later (if needed)
> maybe 16 is too parsimonious; esp if DRM wants multiple instances per
> driver (device?)
>

If we don't want the extra config knob then I would opt for 64.

>
>
> > > will look further later